Muslims "in the crosshairs of bigotry"

I think you'll find that Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh are the highest population Muslim countries.

In Indonesia, terrorism is very low, we've had one small, failed attack there in the last year.

How many do you think have been in Iraq?

There was a 326% increase in anti-muslim hate crimes in 2015 alone (source), and promoting this "us vs them" mentality makes the (ostensible) lack of integration worse, not better.

It's really disturbing how muslims (as a homogenous group) are treated as fair game for many people, this can be seen even in mainstream discourse. Worrying.

I did not say that either. Every statement I make is very carefully worded so as to be entirely supportable by scripture. I only say that Islam permits using captives for sex. And that under international legal consensus, using captives for sex is rape. Therefore, in context, Islam permits rape (under certain circumstances).

I have noticed @alevelstresss using made-up quotes before.

you are either completely deluded or incredibly ignorant of the Middle East

These really aren't difficult concepts to understand.

It is important to be able to tell the difference between racism/xenophobia and criticising an unacceptable ideology.

Lack of integration and assimilation is not caused by people criticising the lack of integration and assimilation. It is the other way around.

Patronisation as a debating tactic, cute.

Of course. But the problem is that many people do not make the distinction between anti-muslim bigotry and criticism of Islam

(as the statistics attest),

and even among the ones that do there appears to be a growing tendency to drift into the former category themselves.

Anti-muslim bigotry is a criticism of the lack of integration, or criticising Islam is a criticism of the lack of integration?

Indeed, and Pakistan has one of the worst terrorism problems in the world. It's not a coincidence that this problem with terrorism is coincident with the fact Pakistanis are much more traditionally pious than Bangladeshis or Indonesians.



I've probably spent more than 12 weeks in Indonesia over the course of my life, I know a little about it. Indonesia firstly is much more secular than the Middle East, it's brand of Islam is also quite syncretistic (they believe in various saints, there are some animistic and magical elements thrown in that predate Islam's arrival in South East Asia).

Indonesia doesn't try to be the "most Islamic"; it is quite comfortable in its own skin with its own little brand of Islam. But even with all that in mind, Indonesia had a serious terrorism problem in the early 2000s. If you knew much about Indonesia you'd be aware of the Bali Bombing, one of the worst attacks since 9/11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

Indonesia has dealt with its terrorism problem, for the most part, by destroying the Jemaah Islamiah network. The people have no interest in supporting terrorism or buying into the Islamic victimhood narrative, and it's also no coincidence that one of the biggest hotspots for terroristic extremism in Indonesia is in Aceh, the only part of the archipelago to be under Shariah law.

So you see; the "more Islamic" a people or a country are, the worse the violence and sectarianism gets.



How many what?

Simple statement of fact.

You do not have a right to not feel patronised

True. These people also seem quick to cry "Islamophobe" or "bigot" at people doing either.

What statistics are these?

Examples? References?

Neither of those statements makes any sense in the context of the comment you were replying to.

Obviously the one-dimensional logic of some people about Islam being the problem should mean that Indonesia has the worst terrorism problems of any country, but instead it is pretty good.

The problem of terrorism is almost contained to countries which have serious political unrest -

that is the cause of terrorism, and not a heart-filled desire to save Islam.

"These really aren't difficult concepts to understand" is not a "simple statement of fact". It is a subjective statement that cannot be assumed to be true for significant amounts of the population, i.e. those with severe learning difficulties, etc.

Being able to identify the difference between two obviously different thinks is not difficult.

Are you seriously suggesting that "significant amounts of the population" have "severe learning difficulties"?

Some people say the daftest thinks rather than admit a mistake.

I never suggested anything to the contrary, dear.

That is certainly one aspect. To my mind there are two categories of people that equate Islam with muslims (or conversely cannot distinguish between criticism of the two):

1) Those that think all muslims are responsible for the crimes of those who purport to act in the name of Islam

2) Those that equate criticism of Islam to essentially hate speech against muslims

The 326% increase in incidents of anti-Muslim abuse in 2015, to give one example (source).

The trend toward an ever increasing number of hate crimes (based on spurious connections betweens someone's perceived race and their assumed religion/beliefs) is clear to see in all police (and other) statistics.

Well, I really didn't think it was a difficult concept to understand(!).

Unfortunately for you, repetition of an incorrect statement does not confer upon that statement any increased validity.

"Not difficult" for who? For you? For those of an average intelligence? For 99% of the population? If even one person finds it difficult to understand the distinction you put forth then your statement that the concepts "aren't difficult... to understand" is a "simple statement of fact" cannot be (wholly) true.

From the DoE:

I would say 30,000+ children with severe learning difficulties is "significant", yes.

Indeed.

it is quite comfortable with its own little brand of Islam.

If you knew much about Indonesia you'd be aware of the Bali Bombing, one of the worst attacks since 9/11